Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Does it? I ask again: must the prosecution prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, or is it the burden of the defense to prove involuntariness?

The judge must deem that voluntariness is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Without malice there is no calunnia. In this case, the court did conclude that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the false accusation was voluntary.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you. So is it also on record? Then is there any way you or somebody else could find out? Call the court register or something like that, maybe?

Impossible. The chancellry won't issue the dispositivo until the judges authorize it together with the sentencing report. This will happen only in about 90 days.
However, they must have it, because the 8 members of the jury must have voted on it.

 

[souldonut]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html

Hi Brooktrout,
Thanks for the link.
Another piece of the puzzle is coming into view.
I have wondered whose dark coloered car was seen in the cottage driveway the night Meredith Kercher was murdered.
It was not Raffaele's Audi A3 that was seen, but Kokomani's black Golf. Aha!
Raffaele never split town after the murder, but Rudy did. As did Kokomani.Interesting...

Very intriguing. Did Kokomani ever provide a full alibi for the murder evening, something independently verifiable, and which was scrutinized as heavily as Amanda and Raphaele's? I guess the only person that could possibly support Koko's story is Rudy.

If this is true, that he really was going to the murder house to meet Rudy for a drug deal (!?!), I wonder if he committed perjury in his original testimony. That also contradicts Rudy's alibi that he came by to be with Meredith.

The only thing that makes me pause is putting any weight into anything stated by Giornale dell'Umbria (shown to be repeatedly wrong, and in the business only for the big scoop). It is the fabulous paper that brought the woman screaming "dirty bitch I'll kill you", and other sensationalistic stories about the case.

Nevertheless, I'm curious what logic (if any) the Perugian cops used in excluding Koko as a suspect, or if it ever even crossed their minds since they were already fixated on Foxy Knoxy's cartwheels and pizza consumption.

It's clear that if Koko was involved, you can't expect the police to get to the bottom of it this late, since that could lead to the embarrassment of all embarrassments.

Does anyone have record of Koko's full "story"? (particularly his initial contact with the police). He is only mentioned in the Massei motivation (PMF) like three times, mostly dismissively as a witness.

To any pro-guilt people on here: what logic do you use in dismissing Koko as a suspect in this horrible murder?

 

[Justinian2]

Aside from the neverending series of lies that she told, do you think I should trust a person who has just been convicted for calunnia?

[snip]

Therefore it may be deduced that, accustomed to the consumption of drugs and the effects of the latter, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito participated actively in Rudy’s criminal acts aimed at overcoming Meredith’s resistance, subjugating her will and thus allowing Rudy to act out his lustful impulses; and this is considered to have happened because, for those [i.e. for people] who did not disdain the use of drugs (Amanda has stated that on that evening, before “making love”, they had consumed drugs watching films and reading comic books in which sexuality is accompanied by violence and by situations of fear, disregarding the concept of sexuality as an encounter of [two] persons moved by reciprocal and free emotion (see the comic books seized from Raffaele Sollecito and the statements […]

Because they used 'drugs' (aspirin perhaps?) they are guilty of murder?

This is from the Massei report. Are you going to trust anybody that thinks like this or condones this type of reasoning?

Or what about this one?

Antonio Curatolo, whose declarations have already been established to be reliable,
declared that he had noted both the one and the other [i.e. both of them] (whom he
already knew, albeit only by sight) at about 21.30 to 22.00 pm on the 1st November
in the little square [piazzetta] in front of the University for Foreigners.

Antonio Curatolo is 'established to be reliable'?

Agreed, this is from the Massei report and not necessarily a quote from Mignini. However, I didn't see Mignini object to the official conclusions.

 

[snook1]

Funny thing. Apparently Knox and Sollecito were so stoned the night of the murder that they did help Guede with killing Meredith. Why, then, there's no sign of them in the murder room? Or maybe they helped him in some other, not yet explained, way?

It's hopeless, they're clearly innocent. I honestly have no idea why some people, especially on .org, can't let that one go.

The so called circumstansial evidence, the false accusation...it's really irrelevant. There's no evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Funny thing. Apparently Knox and Sollecito were so stoned the night of the murder that they did help Guede with killing Meredith. Why, then, there's no sign of them in the murder room? Or maybe they helped him in some other, not yet explained, way?

It's hopeless, they're clearly innocent. I honestly have no idea why some people, especially on .org, can't let that one go.

The so called circumstansial evidence, the false accusation...it's really irrelevant. There's no evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder.

They cannot let it go, because Mignini, Massei, Maresca, et al, were less than honest about facts, and about strength and existence of evidence. Thus, were they drawn into a delusion, wherein they were told to reject the real, and rabidly devour the ideal. Now, Hellman comes from outside the charmed circle, and rules all weak and without substance or foundation. It vanishes in smoke. But: How can they now let go of something they had thought they were sure of for 4 years?

 

[Diocletus]

An alibi? If they had an alibi, do you think thay would have called Aviello and Alessi to attempt to provide them with a false alibi?

Aviello/Allessi were not called to provide an alibi.

The alibi is that Knox/Sollecito were at Sollecito's place at the time of the crime. The Aviello/Alessi testimony had nothing to do with this fact.

Aviello/Alessi testified about alternate theories of the crime--i.e., Rudy alone or persons other than Knox/Sollecito committed the crime. While this testimony would exclude Knox/Sollecito from the crime scene, it does not affirmatively place them elsewhere at the time of the crime. The evidence that does that is the time of death and the computer activity.

 

[Paninaro]

Impossible. The chancellry won't issue the dispositivo until the judges authorize it together with the sentencing report. This will happen only in about 90 days.
However, they must have it, because the 8 members of the jury must have voted on it.

I see. Well, Judge Hellmann should have told us then, to avoid speculation.

Machiavelli, do you think this is a good system generally: to have two different classes of innocence?

 

[Diocletus]

The judge must deem that voluntariness is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Without malice there is no calunnia. In this case, the court did conclude that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the false accusation was voluntary.

The voluntariness of an act and intent to harm a person (malice) are two different things.

In naming Lumumba specifically, Knox obviously intended that the harm would be to Lumumba and not someone else. But this does not necessarily mean that she voluntarily made an accusation. So, from my perspective, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that since Knox named a specific person, therefore, her accusation must have been voluntary and not coerced. That is not a true statement where I come from, but I don't know about Italy.

Are you saying that the prosecution had the burden to prove both malice and voluntariness, and that if Knox claimed coercion as a defense, she had no burden to come forward with evidence of coercion, and instead, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a lack of coercion?

 

[RWVBWL]

Very intriguing. Did Kokomani ever provide a full alibi for the murder evening, something independently verifiable, and which was scrutinized as heavily as Amanda and Raphaele's? I guess the only person that could possibly support Koko's story is Rudy.

If this is true, that he really was going to the murder house to meet Rudy for a drug deal (!?!), I wonder if he committed perjury in his original testimony. That also contradicts Rudy's alibi that he came by to be with Meredith.

The only thing that makes me pause is putting any weight into anything stated by Giornale dell'Umbria (shown to be repeatedly wrong, and in the business only for the big scoop). It is the fabulous paper that brought the woman screaming "dirty bitch I'll kill you", and other sensationalistic stories about the case.

Nevertheless, I'm curious what logic (if any) the Perugian cops used in excluding Koko as a suspect, or if it ever even crossed their minds since they were already fixated on Foxy Knoxy's cartwheels and pizza consumption.

It's clear that if Koko was involved, you can't expect the police to get to the bottom of it this late, since that could lead to the embarrassment of all embarrassments.

Does anyone have record of Koko's full "story"? (particularly his initial contact with the police). He is only mentioned in the Massei motivation (PMF) like three times, mostly dismissively as a witness.

To any pro-guilt people on here: what logic do you use in dismissing Koko as a suspect in this horrible murder?

Hi SoulDonut,
I'd look for some info here in Frank sfarzo's earlier posting:

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/scornflake

and also do a good search of the all 4 sections of this thread...

This is definately interesting, IMHO.
I recall a poster at Perugia Shock named LMT who thought that Meredith, walking past a car doing a drug delivery near her flat while she was trying to call her Mom, hence the quick hang up, was then possibly accosted and then killed afterwards.

There's still too many unanswered questions in this case:
The black car, the bloody napkins outside, the cats blood on the lightswitch, Stefano's bedroom mess, etc...

See you,
RW

 

[snook1]

They cannot let it go, because Mignini, Massei, Maresca, et al, were less than honest about facts, and about strength and existence of evidence. Thus, were they drawn into a delusion, wherein they were told to reject the real, and rabidly devour the ideal. Now, Hellman comes from outside the charmed circle, and rules all weak and without substance or foundation. It vanishes in smoke. But: How can they now let go of something they had thought they were sure of for 4 years?

Agree. I can't imagine how bad they must've felt when the verdict was announced. All these years, they somehow, were convinced that it's all good, that both Knox and Sollecito were involved. Now, as you say, Hellmann had to step his foot in there and order a quick release due to no evidence whatsoever.

The delusion that you mentioned, was clearly visible for people that were outside of .org and .net (incl TJMK), but obviously people there most probably had no idea that they were wrong. I don't know if it's worth to laugh about it or cry.

They still continue to argue, to make some wild accusations, they're inventing stories and scenarios. Just like the prosecution did and failed. They should really learn from this mistake and drop it now. They should focus on Meredith and then on Guede. Instead, they're still on Amanda's witchy ways. Blah.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Hi SoulDonut,
I'd look for some info here in Frank sfarzo's earlier posting:

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/scornflake

and also do a good search of the all 4 sections of this thread...

This is definately interesting, IMHO.
I recall a poster at Perugia Shock named LMT who thought that Meredith, walking past a car doing a drug delivery near her flat while she was trying to call her Mom, hence the quick hang up, was then possibly accosted and then killed afterwards.

There's still too many unanswered questions in this case:
The black car, the bloody napkins outside, the cats blood on the lightswitch, Stefano's bedroom mess, etc...

See you,
RW

Hi RW,

Good to see you posting and you make some more good points, as usual.

I also remember LMT and that particular theory. He noted that it was possible that the drug dealers may have thought that Meredith had called the police and suggested that as one reason she could have initially been accosted.

 

[Justinian2]

Aside from the neverending series of lies that she told, do you think I should trust a person who has just been convicted for calunnia?

I think the famous profiler should be sued, had he been in Italy.

This is how the man you trust would defend himself (other than by filing a lawsuit).

The article quoted unnamed supporters saying Mignini is “using the high-profile Amanda Knox case to improve his dicey reputation.” The paper also reported that “some in both the American and Italian legal field believe Mignini is mentally unstable.” Mignini laughed off the allegations—“I am quite a healthy man. I don’t go to the doctor much”—but said they’re part of a systematic attempt to discredit him and influence the trial.

I think the famous profiler should be sued, had he been in Italy.

The profiler alluded to has participated in almost 5000 more cases than Mignini.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

.....They should focus on Meredith and then on Guede. Instead, they're still on Amanda's witchy ways.

That just about sums it up for me with regards to the vast majority of them. They are Amanda HATE SITES - little to do with Meredith, Raffele and/or Rudy.

Sad and pathetic nonentities in the main, interspersed with one or two deluded 'wannabes'

 

[Brooktrout]

Old guardian piece re. Koko

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/italy.internationalcrime

 

[smkovalinksy]

Agree. I can't imagine how bad they must've felt when the verdict was announced. All these years, they somehow, were convinced that it's all good, that both Knox and Sollecito were involved. Now, as you say, Hellmann had to step his foot in there and order a quick release due to no evidence whatsoever.

The delusion that you mentioned, was clearly visible for people that were outside of .org and .net (incl TJMK), but obviously people there most probably had no idea that they were wrong. I don't know if it's worth to laugh about it or cry.

They still continue to argue, to make some wild accusations, they're inventing stories and scenarios. Just like the prosecution did and failed. They should really learn from this mistake and drop it now. They should focus on Meredith and then on Guede. Instead, they're still on Amanda's witchy ways. Blah.

Yes- at this point it has crossed over to willful and inexcusable behavior. When cigarette smokers had to face, years ago, scientific reports that despite years of glamorous advertising, smoking was an extreme danger to health in many areas, and pernicious to the growing fetus, all but the most stubborn were forced to accept this. The same should apply here.

 

[RWVBWL]

Funny thing. Apparently Knox and Sollecito were so stoned the night of the murder that they did help Guede with killing Meredith. Why, then, there's no sign of them in the murder room? Or maybe they helped him in some other, not yet explained, way?


+

It's hopeless, they're clearly innocent. I honestly have no idea why some people, especially on .org, can't let that one go.

The so called circumstansial evidence, the false accusation...it's really irrelevant. There's no evidence that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder.

Hello Snook1,
I agree, and since we can not watch the video re-creation tha the prosecution made which helped convict Raffaele and Amanda in the 1st trial for their participation in an orgy gone wrong, I added a copy of the 2 photo's I've seen to your quoted post above that depict Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele attacking Meredith Kercher during that supposed sex crime. Looking at those images, I can see so many ways for evidence from Raffaele and Amanda to have been found.

If the murder went down this way, how come only Rudy Guede,
the poor black guy, only left his DNA, his palmprint, his fingerprints there?

Please don't insult my low IQ and say that Amanda and Raffael, rich and white, did a very detailed, selective clean-up that only removed all microscopic traces of their participation, but left Rudy's to be found. That just will not fly with this high school graduate, a member of the court of public opinion!
See you,
RW


R.I.P. Meredith Kercher

 

[Diocletus]

Old guardian piece re. Koko

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/22/italy.internationalcrime

So, the old I-was-there-but-I-didn't-do-it story. That story got two other people arrested in this case, so why not Kokomani? Is it because he offered to incriminate Knox and Sollecito, and therefore became a "superwitness"?

 

[Kaosium]

My argument is that this thread has become out of hand. Your post saying you wanted to 'fix' me is my evidence. Amongst others by others.

And now you insult my perceptive skill. Despite seemingly missing the point that I agree with you. Just not the delivery of it.

I don't require you to analyse my opinion, thanks. But I do think some of you should analyse your behaviour. And let's drop this 'vindicated' talk, shall we? You're just people making comments on the internet.

The mantra 'irrational, irrational' does not apply when no one here is wrong. I merely expressed a concern with the way people respond to each others here. And I was attacked for it. It's funny. Tragic, but funny.

Now, unless you can respond without vitriol, this discussion is over.

There was no vitriol in that post, perhaps you could try employing the benefit of the doubt instead? It appears you wish that what you say to be established as Truth, and how you interpret someone else's post to also become Truth regardless of contextual cues. It also suggests the problem may be in your perception of the characters on your screen, not in the intentions of the one who posted them, as that's not something you could know for certain.

I don't recall off the top of my head, what was it that convinced you they were highly likely to be innocent and/or found not guilty? That's one way to determine if rationality helped you to your decision. I agree we're just posters on the internet, I was going to demur on this as it occurred to me yesterday but because you like ostentatious displays and all, and wish to see us celebrating our vindication, I decided to show you something from my very first post on the issue. I'm cheating a little but still, not too bad a call on Massei which I'd just gotten done skipping over the boring parts reading and the resolution of the case--so far:

12th October 2010, 10:53 PM
<...>
I can't help but wonder that now with the Motivations report readily available and, to put it kindly, more suggestive of her innocence than guilt from what I've seen, is it possible that this prosecutor knowing he has little hope of prevailing at the appeal wants to secure the Slander conviction to save face and she will be released with time served in the near future? I would think that eventually Italy will tire of the embarrassment of having the bilges of their justice system on display before the world and there might be pressure from somewhere to just retire this issue with a face-saving gesture.

If you haven't noticed, I don't think just because you say something it must be true, and being as you haven't bothered to drop it down and engage with me on much of anything more than how I should listen to you and prioritize your 'concerns' of how I post, I am affording your 'analysis' and technique the same respect you've shown me and mine.

You did help me make my quota today on being called crazy though, twice even--wasn't it? Thanks! I've kind of a twisted sense of humor...

 

[Katody Matrass]

An alibi? If they had an alibi, do you think thay would have called Aviello and Alessi to attempt to provide them with a false alibi?

This is not true and sheer nonsense. Why are you twisting facts?

Neither Aviello nor Alessi provided any alibi to AK or RS.